Talk:Modern history/Archive 1

Untitled

 * See also Talk:Modern Times/Archive

VFD Result
The result of the VFD can be found here: Votes for deletion/Modern history -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction
The opening paragraph provides contradictory evidence to the rest of the article. It reads "Early modern European history is usually seen to span from the turn of the 15th century, through the Age of Reason and Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century." While under 'Late Modern Period' it lists these very ages as characteristics that define it from the early modern period. There is also much use for the words that may sound like modern but in fact have a very different meaning.

The whole article is skatty with many inaccuracies - it urgently needs to be rewritten or have a warning that it doesn't even agree with itself.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.108.110 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

eurocentric
this article seems to centre around the modern history of western civilization, while greatly ignoring the wast of the world.

i vote for the deletion of certain pages of the article. By the way, is the picture of an i-pod necessary? 213.42.21.81 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)madcowwillie

Limited Information
This article, in order to be considered Modern History must include all of Modern History, which it clearly dose not do. The article should either be greatly expanded upon with mention of the east, outside of the context of war with the west, or be deleted due to the lack of balance and, as the comment above states, euocentricity. JDMONTY (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead?
Why is there no lead on this article? Could someone more in-tune with article write one? J Milburn 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.FlammingoHey 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
As the anonymous IP person states above this is focused around the west, I would go further to say this is focused around America and Europe, but does not touch on member states of Europe (yes it actually has individual states with their own sovereignty people)

So I will read up on, provide sources for and write up this subject so that it gets an A rating (and no I won't include a picture of an I-Pod)

I will attempt to make it as global and comprehensive as possible.

If you're looking here then there are things that you can help me with... sources... need lots of 'em I'll be relying on personal statements, newspapers etc.

I'm hoping to write something any historian would admire, so bear with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.160.158 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 July 2007
 * Then please take a minute and create an account, that gives you more options and better communication! FlammingoHey 07:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done!--Henry Fenby-Taylor 12:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Yesterday I have googled wikipedia to find subjects of historical importance that I will link to. The main themes are as follows. The progress of International Relations, War, Peace & Economics.

I note the African Union has not been mentioned. The rise of new economic global powers is only given a cursory mention. The author implies that the war in Iraq is a war for oil, when in fact there is only a BELIEF that the war was waged for oil, the mention of elections in Iraq is pointless, because they hold no significance to the underlying consequences of the Iraq occupation. Except for Turkey no mention of the expansion of Europe is made. No mention is made of American foreign policy changes towards the new European countries either.

I would take out the entire chapter that refers to the beginning of the 21st Century and maybe replace it with a comparison to the beginning of the 20th Century when a lot of similar predictions were made (armageddon and a better world being two examples of commonalities)

To keep it 'historical' only themes that serve a major contribution to the shaping of the present day and the future will be included. However I do not have a west-centric point of view (Even though I am English) so for example I will not lump all state based reprisals against political violence together as 'the war on terror', because it is a) an American construction and not appropriate for an international encyclopedia entry without mentioning its context b) it is not an accurate description of events and c) lacks historical perspective.

Anyway, as you can see I'm getting stuck into the details of this task and will hopefully be able to make the first entry available within 1-2 weeks for review Henry Fenby-Taylor 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome again! Now that sounds very good, linking to the articles relevant to the Modern history is exactly what I had in mind. Structuring the article into topics (best would be e.g. war and politics, economy, philosophy and religion, culture) is a good idea. Only only themes that serve a major contribution to the shaping of the present day and the future will be included makes me thinking: that is not the case! Modern history is the history of a certain period, not history under the aspect of relevance to the present time. Edmund Burke is highgly relevant to history, but not necessarily to the attitudes of today. I am also not sure what you mean by "predictions" in the context of history. But don't mind my thoughts, go ahead, nothing will be lost, sounds really good what you are planning. --FlammingoHey 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the encouragement Flamingo. I'm also adding in a new topic. Globalisation. I take on board your concerns and I am very grateful to you for pointing out Edmund Burke to me of whom I was not aware (my principal 'historical' interests have been centred around my two favourite historical figures Gaius Julius Caesar and Niccolo Macchiavelli). You have given me my reading matter for the next week or so and for that I am very grateful, he seems like a man after my own heart in his opposition to tyranny. However, in my mind the factors that he has influenced, namely the concilliation with America and the opposition of the French Revolution by Great Britain have now become Historical landmarks that now have their own form and character, in my mind he as much a part of these as every other single member of parliament who voted at that time. I'm not discounting your point, indeed it has given me great cause for interest and reflection.


 * As for "predictions", I intend the introduction to be a brief mention of the importance of time and mankinds fascination with arbitrary changes in the calendar. Basically, for a long time writers of fiction have used the millennium as a spring board for a Utopian vision (as mentioned in the entry on millennium), while others have used it as a means to spread another message entirely. It's just a little warm up, but I think its worthy of a brief mention. What do you think? I don't mind leaving it out because I can understand in its strictest sense it is not of historical importance.


 * Anyway, thankyou again for your encouragement, I am writing this my first entry in Wikipedia because I am trying to get into one of the top two Universities in England and it's been a while since I've stretched my intellectual muscles, so I am doing it to prove to myself and to them that I have what it takes. If I have it in my power I'm going to take this page from B Grade to A+ Featured Content (and I think I will)


 * My guiding light throught all this will be the definition of History: An established record or pattern of behavior, an account of related phenomenon, A chronological record of events, and the aggregate of past events or human affairs.


 * --Henry Fenby-Taylor 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with modern era
I've started a thread at talk:modern era about the merger. Please direct your posts to that talkpage.

Peter Isotalo 11:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merged material
Transfered material. J. D. Redding 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is unnecessary
At first, I was going to suggest that this page be merged with Modernity, but I'm actually fascinated with the suggestion of the commenter below. Either way, this page is wholly unnecessary.

To maintain that there's something called 'modernity' that entails changes in society and then the 'modern era', a technical term for historians, is kind of ridiculous. Doesn't most history, in its striving for objectivity, intend to be a public history (not just something technical and separate from the rest of society?). History is ours, not theirs (the historians).

I remember this as one of the 1st things I was taught in college.

I have a problem with subsuming 'modern era' or 'modern times' to simply a technical term. I think the data of this page should be added to 'modern history', but that this page "modern era/modern times" should reroute to modernity.

Navidnak (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern History
This article has much in common with Modern history, so it should be merged or clearly distiguished... --FlammingoParliament 14:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the latter, with Modern History used to describe the historiographical trends, and Modern Era used to describe the history which has occured in this period. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Period, not "times"
Please fix this article so it doesn't refer to "Modern Times". The most common term is by far "Modern Period". The current layout makes the article seem a lot less serious than it should.

Peter Isotalo 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Westphalia
I added the Peace of Westphalia to the list, since it was a significant event establishing the idea of sovereign states, among other aspects of nationhood.

CKSCIII 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC) shut up!!!

I added the Glorious Revolution (1688) to the Early Modern events. Also I added the Congress of Vienna (1814), the Revolutions of 1848, the unification of Italy and Germany (1871), the October Revolution (1917), and the Great Depression (1929). These events were all critical in shaping the world we live in today, I hope everyone agrees. --SCJE (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical "Late" Modern Times
Thanks Flammingo for your Welcome on my user-page.

On the topic: Google is an indication, not more not less. However several hundred (mostly Wikipedia replica) results are unsignificant. Not random, not guessing. Reference[2] don't give any Reference for this hypothetical foreign language use, no source. Even if you'll find one, this would be an individual, not a largely recognized use. As regards content: "Late Modern Times" ? And afterwards: "Latest Modern Times" ??. No, that's not serious. (Just like this "marketing term" of so-called "Postmodernisme".) Historians currently agree: 1. Ancient Times (till about AD 500), 2. Middle-Ages (about 500–1500), 3. Modern Times afterwards, with Renaissance (~ 1420–1580) as a "hinge-joint" epoch. French historians for example continue till nowadays, to designate Histoire contemporaine all the history since end 18th century. Of course, this use is inconsistent since Contemporary History may cover always about 80 years from now. However, beside, a newfangled, but interesting theory – by an effective division of CE 1990 (There is no year zero: AD MCM.XC) – let begin the actual Modern Times in AD 1792 exactly one. So-called Early Modern Times (1492–1792) prepared these our current Modern Times. In no case "Late Modern Times" is a term currently used by historians. -- John-Herbert 2007 11:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Modern Times: since middle or end 15th century.
 * Early Modern Times: up to middle or end 18th century.


 * This is different from German terminology. I'll check then...Einen Moment, schreibe morgen weiter, heute und morgen früh keine Zeit mehr ;-) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's solved now. --FlammingoHey 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Enlightenment
"The Enlightenment" is referred to 4 times without a reference 80.229.242.179 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) That was an era in European ("Western") history of roughly the 18th century promoting the use of Reason to discuss topics, not belief as it used to be. Does that answer your question? --FlammingoHey 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

need more info

Merge
Modern history appears to be merely a duplicate of this article, ei a description of (world) history c. 1800-2000. There should not be more than one article for historical periods unless they actually cover specific aspects of that period. For example, medieval history is the same thing as the Middle Ages. This article seems to be leaning more towards a description of historiography, and could probably be much more informative if it were merged with modern history.

Peter Isotalo 11:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no-one objecting, and no reason why not to go ahead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The merge should go the other way. Modern Era should redirect to Modern History. I'll do it if there is not objection in the next day or two. J. D. Redding 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no big preference. There should be one article anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Eurocentric
This article describes the "modern era" or "modern period" as it pertains to Western (i.e. European and American) history. It marks the beginning of the early modern period with the invention of the Gutenberg printing press and/or Columbus' discovery of America in 1492 and the beginnings of the Age of Exploration/Colonization. It then chooses the onset of the Industrial Revolution as the point when Early Modern became Modern. This is all well and good, but I think the article needs to be more explicit about its Western slant.

Other regions of the world have different historical periodization, you see. In Japan, the Early Modern Period coincides with the rule of the Tokugawa shogunate, also known as the Edo period, beginning in 1600, 1603 or 1615 as you like, and ending in 1867-68 with the abolition of the shogunate and establishment of a new centralized government, a unified national identity as "Japan", and the beginnings of modernization based on the Western model. Over the course of the 1870s, Japan abolished the samurai class, and the merchant-artisan-farmer-samurai class system as a whole, replacing it with a new system of constitutional monarchy, aristocracy, and citizenry based on the European (primarily Prussian) model. Feudal domains were abolished and modern-style administration was established throughout the country; a Parliament was established along with public schools, a modern Western-style military, and countless other changes which there are no need to enumerate.

I am less of an expert on China, but imagine that the Early Modern Period there might be said to have begun around 1644 when the Ming Dynasty fell to the Qing Dynasty; the fall of the Qing in 1911 in favor of a Nationalist Republican government marks the beginning of the Modern Period.

So, while I think that the histories of each region or country of the world are well covered in separate articles and do not need to be reflected here (it would only create a mess, if we tried to describe each and every separate definition (dating) of the onset of the Modern Period here), I think it essential that it be made clearer that this article, as written, refers only to the periodization of history as seen in Western History. LordAmeth (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

End Merge
EOF. J. D. Redding 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)